Succession and Good Governance

26.
Succession and good governance

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson
INTRODUCTION
Succession planning and management are a strategic process that an organization

undertakes to develop a pipeline of targeted individuals who can move into critical posi-
tions in the organization. Succession means planning ahead and anticipating what skills
and abilities will be needed to meet the organization’s current goals and future plans.
Succession planning and management are of increasing importance to organizations as
they deal with contemporary workforce matters such as the exit of a “bubble” of seasoned
leaders and directors who have significant corporate knowledge, the increasingly rapid
advancement of newer employees into leadership positions, declines in organizational
loyalty in terms of staying with an organization from early career through to retirement,
and the changing nature of employment. However, succession planning and management
have not been a key feature of many sport organizations, as Taylor and McGraw (2004,
2006) revealed in their studies of succession management practices in Australian state
sport organizations. They found no examples of formal succession plans, and concluded
that this was a significant performance issue for these organizations, as it has the potential
to lead to less innovative thinking and a lack of diversity. Over ten years later, we still
have little evidence of effective succession management in local, state, national or even
international sport organizations.
In this chapter succession planning and management are discussed in relation to the
governance of sport organizations, focusing on the board of directors and executive
leadership positions within not for profit sport organizations, primarily national and
international federations. The chapter also discusses how limiting the length of time
individuals can be on the board of directors contributes to the improved governance of
these sport organizations. Directors need to deal with succession matters and have plans in
place to ensure appropriate governance processes that enable continuous and sustainable
effective governing. To that end, succession planning is defined as an ongoing process of
identifying, assessing and developing people to ensure continuity. Succession planning
includes processes of succession and renewal that enable the direct replacement of board
members and people in leadership roles. This may occur through natural attrition or
forced “renewal” through mechanisms such as limited board terms. Succession manage-
ment is a complementary process involving a comprehensive assessment and development
to support the attraction, development, reward and retention of talented individuals
(Taylor et al., 2015).
There is an explicit assumption in business that the constantly changing macro
socio-economic and political environments in which an organization operates require a
regular review of the type of board and corporate executives required to fit the particular
circumstances, and thus an evolving “optimal” board and management composition. As
a report on succession planning from PwC (2015, p. 1) opined:
426 and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

Tracy Taylor
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 11/28/2020 08:43:54PM
via University of Western Ontario
M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 426 19/02/2019 10:10

Succession and good governance 427
To successfully lead in extraordinary times, many companies will need to rethink how they
develop executive leadership. It is not enough to rely on the predictable cadre of up-and-comers.
Different kinds of people are required for contemporary organizational work, individuals who
bring a diverse set of capabilities and who can come together as an integrated, high-performing
team to anticipate and capitalize on dynamic changes in the business and societal landscape.
In the case of sport organizations, these governance and succession challenges are often
different from those of for profit corporations, or even small businesses, owing to the
nature of the sport organization’s constitution, board appointment processes, multiplicity
of stakeholders, typically small employee workforce and dependence on a volunteer labor
base. Sport organizations often have rules to follow that are enshrined in their constitu-
tion, which establish who is eligible to be considered for governance roles, often limiting
the number of people available for succession. In addition, many governance positions
are filled by election, rather than appointment, further limiting the flexibility of the suc-
cession planning process.
In this chapter, we set out the basic tenets of succession and then discuss these in rela-
tion to governance issues in sport organizations. We also present the limited research that
has been undertaken on succession issues in sport organizations.
WHY PLAN FOR SUCCESSION?
Succession discussions and decisions address strategic and operational challenges of an

organization and are tied to its long-term sustainability. Succession planning typically
focuses on the most critical positions within an organization, namely those roles which
impact the success of the organization (e.g. leadership positions or highly specialized jobs)
or those roles that have potential impacts on stakeholders directly or indirectly (Rothwell,
2010). Succession is located within an effective talent optimization strategy, and is aligned
with the delineation of the organization’s strategic priorities, leader success profiles, and
capacity needs.
A relatively high turnover of CEOs underpins many organizations’ rationale for
engaging in succession initiatives. In illustration, a global study of 2500 companies found
that the average tenure of CEOs in 2015 was just 5.3 years (Ballard et al., 2016). There
are generally two options to long-term CEO succession planning, taking an internal or
external approach to the appointment. Many organizations keep both options open,
but often small organizations, which are characteristic of the sport sector, may not have
the depth in the organization to rely only on potential internal candidates for the CEO
position. The advantage of internal appointments is that the successor is familiar with the
organization and vice versa. Interestingly, research suggests that internal appointments
are on average more likely to outperform external appointments and have slightly longer
tenures than external appointments (Ballard et al., 2016). However, if the organization
determines that there is a need for significant change of strategy or culture, the succession
search is likely to be externally focused.
Succession is also relevant for directors of boards owing to the typically “advanced”
average age of directors and the need for contemporary experience and relevance on a
board. The skills, knowledge and experience required to effectively lead an organization
change over time and, in consequence, the board director composition may also need
Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 427 19/02/2019 10:10

428 Research handbook on sport governance
to change to ensure an optimal mix. Succession planning for board positions provides
a process by which the organization can target board members who align with its future
needs. There is sparse research on sport board succession, but we can draw some parallels
with the experience of other industry sectors. For example, Anderson and Chun’s (2014)
study of board turnover and shareholder returns for the S&P 500 companies from 2003
to 2013 examined each company’s performance in the subsequent three-year period to see
the impact of new directors. Their analysis revealed:
●● Organizations that replaced three or four directors over a three-year period outper-
formed their peers, suggesting an optimal amount of turnover.
●● Most boards miss this optimal zone.
●● The worst performers tended to be those with either no director changes at all in
three years or five or more changes.
This study clearly found that board change has positive outcomes for the organization
and its members/shareholders. It seems reasonable to suggest that these performances of
sport boards would be impacted in the same way by new directors, as the role of directors
in not for profit sport organizations and S&P 500 companies is similar. Now let’s turn to
look at the sport context.
SUCCESSION IN SPORT
Succession planning and management are processes that sport organizations can deploy
in order to ensure organizational relevance and sustainability. Skill and knowledge sets
that are central to the organization’s short- and long-term functioning are identified, and
contingency plans are put in place to fill the relevant roles should the incumbent leave that
position. Internally, this involves identifying, developing and nurturing “talent” within a
career pathway to fill positions critical to the success and leadership of the organization.
In other cases, it involves identifying persons or skill sets that are external to the organiza-
tion and accordingly targeting relevant individuals for recruitment.
Succession can be considered in terms of the saying that “A team is only as good as its
bench.” As described by a state government document on this,
If a team plays in a grand final match and one of their star players goes down with a major injury,
it is vital that there is someone on the bench that can easily run onto the field and fill the gap.
They need to know what is required of them in that position. They need to have had training
there and they need to be able to fit in well with the players around them so that the combinations
are effective. Without this, your team is not entirely whole and often will not stack up against the
opposition. Succession planning is ultimately the process of improving your “bench strength.”
(NSW Communities Sport and Recreation, n.d.)
Succession issues in sport can arise at the local level when club presidents or board
members stay in the role for many years because there is simply no one to take over and/
or they believe that when they leave the club will collapse because there is no one prepared
to step up to the role. Whether this situation is “real” or not is a point of perception. A
multi-year study of rugby union clubs across Australia found that non-board member

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 428 19/02/2019 10:10

volunteers felt a sense of frustration with the long tenure of club presidents who claimed
they had to retain their board position as there was nobody to replace them (despite
evidence to the contrary) and that this was often demotivating, slowed down change and
led to volunteer attrition (Hoye et al., 2008).
Tacon and Walters’s (2016) national survey of board-level governance in the UK found
that whether board members are appointed on the basis of their skills or elected through
membership structures is a major issue for national governing bodies of sport. While the
study did not specifically look at succession issues, the authors noted that board selection
was complex and emotive and decisions were linked to maintaining direct local/regional
representation on the board.
In research carried out with community sport clubs in Canada, Doherty et al. (2014,
p. 132S) highlighted that “the importance of volunteer succession with a smooth transi-
tion of volunteers in and out of key roles and ensuring that knowledge gets passed along
when new people get involved was also noted [by interviewees].” The situation with inter-
national sport organizations, such as national and international federations, is slightly
different, where a lack of succession planning, or a lack of will to make personnel changes,
can lead to individuals holding positions on boards for a significant number of years,
decades even, and allows individuals to hold senior positions in a number of key sport
organizations. For example, Mario Vázquez Raña was president of the Mexican Olympic
Committee (1974–2001), president of the Pan American Sports Organization (1975–2012)
and president of the Association of National Olympic Committees (1979–2012). He died
in 2012, vacating his position on the boards of these organizations. The reasons for the
lack of consideration of succession planning within sport organizations such as these is
discussed later in the chapter.
SUCCESSION AND THE GOVERNANCE OF SPORT
The topic of good governance of sport organizations has increased in prominence within
the international sport world and has spawned a myriad of principles, frameworks, guides
and codes all aimed at addressing clearly identified (and often public) weaknesses in the
governance of international sporting organizations. For example, structures guiding the
governance of sport organizations have been published by the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) (2008), the Sport and Recreation Alliance (2014) and the Australian
Sports Commission (2012), as well as within a substantive range of international
federations and national Olympic committees globally. The UK Sport Code for Sports
Governance (2017), which is linked to funding, requires increased skills and diversity in
decision making, with a target of at least 30 percent gender diversity on boards.
Researchers who have addressed the topic, such as Henry and Lee (2004), Taylor and
O’Sullivan (2009) and Mowbray (2012), have also suggested structures and principles
to underpin and support governance. However, sport federations have been reluctant to
engage with the concept of succession planning. Researchers (see below) have noted that
there is sparse research on board or executive leadership succession planning in sport
organizations. The few empirical studies of the latter that have been conducted over the
past ten years have found that most sport organizations do not take a strategic approach
to succession management (Taylor et al., 2015).

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 429 19/02/2019 10:10

In their article on sprint canoeing, Sotiriadou et al. (2014) noted that participants in
their research lamented the lack of a long-term plan for their organization and associated
with this was the need for better succession planning. Likewise, in their study of sport
clubs in Tabriz and change management, Zare and Janani (2015) found that, although
some clubs have robust change management planning processes, there was little evidence
of succession planning. They therefore suggested the need for introducing initiatives
such as job rotation to address the lack of succession management. In their review article
Day et al. (2012) present a number of research studies that focus on the impact of coach/
manager succession and change on team performance. Their systematic review reveals
insights into leadership and succession effects in organizations, with the bottom line being
that “leadership matters.”
Karg et al.’s (2015) investigation of the impact of coach succession on season ticket
holder attitudes argues that changes to coaching staff have predominantly focused on
on-field performance impact, i.e. winning percentages in subsequent games or seasons.
But, as the authors point out, “leader” changes have wider impacts on the organization
and these are not necessarily well understood (see Chapter 27 in this volume). While their
research looked at the impact of coach change on fan attitudes, the premise of wider
organizational implications is relevant to our discussion in this chapter about succession
and governance.
In reviewing the current state of the field in sport for development (SFD), Schulenkorf
(2017) suggested that research on succession planning presents an exciting area for theo-
retical and empirical work, as “there has been limited research conducted on leadership
development and succession planning from a sport management perspective, let alone in
an SFD context.”
In setting out key issues in modern sport governance, Bradbury and O’Boyle (2013)
suggest that succession planning is of critical importance to board success, but the
accompanying international case studies in their book do not provide any further
discussion or information on this imperative. While succession planning has been com-
monplace in the corporate world for some time, it has only recently gained currency in
the non-profit sector. Hoque and Parker (2014) suggest that current trends in board
governance practices in this sector that warrant attention include succession plans, board
recruitment, skills and expertise required, and board member removal. What follows
below is a consideration of the succession challenges facing contemporary not for profit
sport organizations.
EXTENDED TENURE AND LOW TURNOVER
The challenge of board and senior executive turnover and succession is most apparent
when considering relatively high profile international sport organizations where there are
numerous examples of people who have held senior posts within sport organizations for
decades (see Table 26.1). The reasons for this are complex, difficult to (publicly) identify
and counter to “best practice” as evidenced in the management literature. While not in
sport, the Global Policy Survey conducted in August 2016 asked which tenure-related
factors would give rise to concern about a board’s nominating and refreshment processes.
Among the 120 institutional investors who responded, the greatest cause for concern was

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 430 19/02/2019 10:10

Table 26.1 Examples of sport administrators holding senior board position for extended
periods of time
Name and country Role

John Coates, Australia President of the Australian Olympic Committee since 1990
Patrick Hickey, Ireland President of the Olympic Council of Ireland 1989–2016
Juan Antonio Samaranch, President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Spain 1980–2001
Ruben Acosta, Mexico President of the International Volleyball Federation 1984–2008
Sepp Blatter, Switzerland President of FIFA 1998–2016
Jose Sulaiman, Mexico President of the World Boxing Council 1975–2014
Mario Vázquez Raña, Mexico President of the Association of National Olympic Committees
1990–2012
Lamine Diack, Senegal President of the International Association of Athletics
Federations 1999–2015
the high proportion of directors with long tenure (68 percent), followed by an absence
of newly appointed independent directors in recent years (53 percent). Other factors of
concern were directors’ ages, and lengthy average tenure coupled with underperformance
(Lukomnik, 2017).
As noted earlier in this chapter, while there is substantive evidence in the management
literature that good governance and appropriate succession management are linked,
there is little research on this as it relates to sport organizations. In their working paper
Basic Indicators for Better Governance in International Sport, Chappelet and Mrkonjic
(2013) did not include succession planning as a basic indicator of good governance, and
their only mention of succession management is in the appendix, as one of Sport and
Recreation New Zealand’s (2013 [2006]) “Nine steps to effective governance: Building
high performing organizations.” Likewise, in examining generic models of sports govern-
ance and their potential for sustainability in Australian sport, Booth et al. (2015) only
reported one example (Hockey Australia) of succession planning featuring in the strategic
organizational planning process.
FIXED TERMS IN SPORT
What is more common, however, is the promotion of “fixed terms,” both in the length
of the term, usually four years in these organizations, and in the number of terms an
individual can do within a particular role. For example, the IOC president is elected for
eight years, renewable once for an additional four years. The Chappelet and Mrkonjic
(2013) review of sport governance shows that many of the governance frameworks and
principles mentioned above address the principle of board turnover and advocate fixed-
term lengths and term limits. This addresses the call to “encourage board renewal while
retaining corporate memory” (Australian Sports Commission, 2012). Chappelet and
Mrkonjic’s (2013) review includes the need that “the organization’s elected officials have
a term limit” (p. 16).

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 431 19/02/2019 10:10

High profile sport entities such as FIFA and the IOC have received much negative
media coverage criticizing their governance processes, the way in which board members
are appointed, the long length of terms of many serving members, the lack of gender
diversity and in many cases the very integrity of the appointees. Issa Hayatou, considered
a controversial figure in football, in March 2017 sought an eighth term as president of the
Confederation of African Football (CAF). However, long-standing integrity matters and
corruption claims precipitated CAF to elect a new president, ousting Issa Hayatou, its
leader since 1988. Along with his role in African football, Hayatou has been an honorary
IOC member since 2001 and a senior vice-president of FIFA since 1992.
The above criticisms suggest the need for turnover of board members, and the benefits
of board change (Anderson and Chun, 2014) and CEO turnover (Ballard et al., 2016) are
well documented. Change can ensure the organization has the right balance of skills in
the executive and leadership levels, accelerate the introduction of new innovations and
approaches to management, and in some socio-cultural contexts be of particular benefit
if the newcomers have strong political (He et al., 2014) or financially beneficial (Yeh et
al., 2009) connections.
Notwithstanding the demonstrated advantages in terms of organization innovation,
freshness of insight and addressing diversity issues, board and CEO renewal is increas-
ingly gaining importance in sport as an anti-corruption and transparency measure. For
example, the downfall of Sepp Blatter (and his senior executive team), Patrick Hickey
and Lamine Diack because of unethical and arguably corrupt practices has been widely
discussed in the media and other forums (cf. Gibson, 2016; Transparency International,
2016; Daily Mail, 2017; Matheson et al., 2017). Without doubt their behavior was
facilitated by being in posts of power for such a long period of time. This allowed them
to create the alliances that led to potentially corrupt possibilities, to build the power that
meant they had influence over others that could be used as an asset and to control a
number of international sport organizations (Geeraert, 2015). In a news conference, then
US Attorney General Loretta Lynch alleged:
[FIFA executives] used their positions to solicit bribes. They did this over and over. Year after
year. Tournament after tournament. . ..The indictment alleges corruption that is rampant,
systemic, and deep-rooted both abroad and here in the United States. . ..It spans at least two
generations of soccer officials who, as alleged, have abused their positions of trust to acquire
millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks. (United States Department of Justice, 2015)
Reporting on research carried out by Play the Game with the 35 Olympic international
sport federations, Geeraert (2015) identified a number of reasons why the introduction of
fixed terms into these organizations was important in terms of good governance. First,
the longer an individual has been in place on a board, the more likely that person is to be
re-elected, and this likelihood grows with years of service. There are a number of reasons
for this, such as the ability to offer resources for support, fear of uncertainty with electing
a new and possibly unknown candidate, name recognition and power. In effect, limited
turnover in board personnel means that long-standing individuals build up a substantial
power base, and opportunities for increasing diversity, of membership and ideas, may be
compromised.
Second, term limits are important in order to prevent incumbents from accumulating
power and subsequently using this power to stay in office through patronage or covert

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 432 19/02/2019 10:10

activity. This links to the third argument for having term limits, in that incumbents are
“more likely to target voters who benefit the most from their policies” (Geeraert, 2015,
p. 34), and thus term limits can encourage incumbents to act in the general interest of the
organization rather than favoring a particular group.
Despite the obvious failures of good governance, and the link between longevity and
corruption, few international sport organizations have formally adopted limited board
terms. For example, only 20 of the 205 national Olympic committees have fixed terms
enshrined within their constitutions. Furthermore, in analyzing the quality of the self-
governance of the 35 Olympic sport governing bodies Geeraert et al. (2014) found that
only eight out of 35 organizations had regulations outlined in their statutes regarding
the number of terms allowed in office, and only six had rules that members must stand
down when they reach a specific age. Furthermore Geeraert (2015) found that those
organizations with term limits either apply these inconsistently to different types of board
members or allow the entrenched board member to stay in place for a consecutive period
of eight years or more. Board evaluations could include succession conversations whereby
the board plans for a period of transition of long-serving board members, including shar-
ing of their corporate knowledge, and systematically identifies the ideal skills, knowledge
and profile of “new” board members.
In order to understand the apparent reluctance to embrace fixed terms, the University
of Stirling investigated the phenomenon of fixed terms within international sporting
organizations. The study comprised semi-structured interviews with representatives from
Olympic/Commonwealth sporting organizations across the world, both with and without
fixed terms. The research found that most organizations were either still considering fixed
terms or had considered them and rejected them because of perceived disadvantages.
The latter were predominantly concerns over the loss of skills and knowledge of existing
board members. For example, one sport administrator stated that “We wouldn’t know
what to do if the board had to leave,” but also trepidation about loss of prestige and
ability to influence by the individual and the organization. For example, when a national
sport association had a representative on an international federation board, then it was
less likely to consider limits that would force individuals to give up their place on the
board. As one interviewee stated, “the [IF] rules state that [named board member] has to
be on our board – why would we give away our IF position, which we’d have to if [named
board member] wasn’t on the board?” It was also noted that, in some cases, board limits
were thought to lead to “position cycling,” where individuals stand for one position after
another to stay on the board. As one sport administrator explained, “They can get around
it . . . they can be treasurer, secretary-general, president and then back to the start . . . so
what difference does it make?” This loophole would seem to be a result of the deemed
terms of board membership within the organization’s constitution.
Those that had introduced limits had done so because they believed (often without
evidence) that this was a requirement for good governance and that they were required to
do so as they were part of the Olympic Movement. “They’re in the Basic Principles, aren’t
they? We’re a NOC, so we have to have them . . . don’t we?” (secretary-general, national
Olympic committee). It was also clear that board limits were considered to have implica-
tions for succession planning and this was a barrier for many organizations without
limits, reflected in this quote from an executive board member of an international sport
organization, who said: “Who would do the work? There’s no one interested.”

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 433 19/02/2019 10:10

It is worth considering the concerns expressed in more detail, which can be grouped
into the following categories:
●● Loss of skills and knowledge from the board: This is an understandable concern,
particularly from organizations that do not carry out succession planning and thus
do not ensure that the board has the appropriate skill base. However, as identified in
the earlier discussion and specifically by NSW Communities Sport and Recreation,
the main rationale for succession planning is to prevent the loss of skills and
knowledge from the board.
●● Who would do the work? Finding volunteers is always a difficult job for voluntary
sport organizations. Volunteer retention has been noted by Misener and Doherty
(2009) and Doherty et al. (2014) as a critical challenge facing community sport
clubs. In addition, in the case of international sport organizations, given they are
meta-organizations (Kerwer, 2013) composed of a number of other sport organiza-
tions represented by members with many of the same desires and abilities as those
who hold key positions in the international sport organization, they should have a
ready pool of talent who could “do the work.”
●● Loss of prestige and ability to influence for the individual and the organization: There
is a perception that individual board members and their organization benefit from
holding board positions in other sport organizations. From an individual perspec-
tive, board members often stay in five-star hotels when attending board meetings
and are often invited to prestigious events in their role as board members. Standing
down from a board removes these privileges. The organization also benefits, as the
individual concerned is privy to information that other organizations do not receive
and thus has the possibility to shape decisions to benefit his/her own organization.
Geeraert (2015, p. 34) identifies this in a discussion of the benefits of length of service:

In the case that continental sports federations elect governing body members, they will
be inclined to vote for incumbents because they have more experience. Voters reason that
they therefore have more power in the international federation’s governing body and that
electing an alternative candidate will give them a comparative disadvantage in relation to
other continental federations.
It is very hard to challenge this concern from an organizational perspective.

International sport bodies often require a board member to hold a position on
one organization to be qualified to stand for election for another organization. For
example, individuals are often required to be a member of a national federation
before they can be elected to the international federation. This is a unique sport
situation and requires constitutional change in governance to be overcome. It is
difficult to see how succession planning and management can address this.
●● Position cycling: This is where individuals stand for one position after another to
stay on the board, such as when a person stands for secretary-general after being
president. These individuals are more likely to be elected over other people, as they
have held a previous position of influence in the organization (Geeraert, 2015). An
argument could be made that this is the job rotation suggested by Zare and Janani
(2015). However, this does not usually open posts up to new position holders and
acts against the intention of fixed terms.

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 434 19/02/2019 10:10

It would appear that a case based on the positive impact of “organizational renewal”
needs to be made more strongly for sport organizations if the argument for limited terms is
to be accepted, particularly by international sport organizations. This, and other research,
has shown that concerns over the loss of existing expertise outweighed any belief in the
benefits of board renewal in many of the organizations. Indeed, even those that had limited
terms had primarily introduced them for compliance reasons, rather than the opportunity
for innovation and “fresh thinking.” However, arguably, given the difficulties that inter-
national sport is currently facing, it is the anti-corruption argument that is more likely to
bring about a wider introduction of term limits into the governance of sport organizations.
SUCCESSION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
NSW Communities Sport and Recreation is one organization out of only a few that has
directly considered the value of succession planning and management in sport and has
identified a number of benefits. It emphasizes the continuity and stability to the organiza-
tion that comes from succession planning, particularly in times of crisis. In addition, the
process of succession planning is thought to bring many benefits, as it encourages the
sport organization to:
●● identify critical roles within the club, the skills required to carry out these roles, both
now and in the future, and any skill gaps;
●● identify individuals who possess these skills, both within the organization and
among those who could become part of the organization;
●● examine and assess the current makeup of its paid and unpaid workforce, which
leads to more thoughtful recruitment and can create a more diverse base;
●● put in place strategies for the development and retention of talented individuals in
the long term;
●● ensure information sharing and record keeping which avoids the loss of critical
information (such as member databases) when key personnel move on; and
●● carry out ongoing review and evaluation, which improves overall management.
The consequences of this are thought to be an improved and better-informed recruit-

ment process for key positions, increased access to training and development opportuni-
ties, and greater leadership capabilities. All of these have an impact on creating positive
organizational morale and commitment. While there has been little research on succession
management in sport organizations, the general principles that have been found to be
effective in business are relevant in many contexts. These include:
1. succession management as a core part of the organization’s strategy and culture;

2. board and executive leadership succession as a team effort;
3. developing a dynamic and flexible set of essential competencies for future organiza-
tional leaders;
4. using targeted experiences and stretch assignments to develop successors;
5. leadership and talent development as part of the organization’s performance manage-
ment and reward process;

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 435 19/02/2019 10:10

6. facilitating renewal discussions and having the hard conversations when required;
7. proactively managing people politics and organizational culture dynamics.
The discussion in this chapter highlights the need for research on succession manage-
ment and the sport sector, and there are a number of avenues that need further exploration.
In the first instance, the benefits of succession management within other contexts need to
be established within the not for profit sport sector. In addition, a focus on the techniques
that can facilitate board change and the consequences of these for not for profit sport
organizations is likely to be a rich area of research. This will allow an informed discussion
of the need for succession management within these organizations.
CONCLUSION
Succession planning and management have been long recognized as critical components
to organizational success. Board and CEO succession is a topic of considerable attention
in the general business and management literature. Effective succession planning has
been lauded as a crucial element in improved business profitability, found to contribute
to shareholder value creation and linked to long-term business sustainability. Increasingly,
non-profit organizations are also turning their attention to the tenets of succession plan-
ning in order to ensure the ongoing sustainability and viability of their operations.
Forward thinking sport organizations are undertaking formalization and implementa-
tion of a succession planning process to both facilitate positive change and minimize
the impact of negative change in the workplace. Succession management can act to get
organizations considering how to best develop their workforce and board pipeline, and
assist with transitions. This forward planning is vital, as board members, in particular,
have been found to state (rightly or wrongly) that the main reason they need to continue
to extend their terms in office indefinitely is the absence of a qualified replacement.
Identifying high potential candidates who will bring new skills and ways of thinking to the
table and improve the leadership pipeline is therefore a key benefit of succession planning.
Organizations that will thrive in a digitally disrupted landscape will have leaders who have
an understanding of what is likely to shape their current and future operating contexts
(Gitsham et al., 2012). The accelerating pace of change and disruption means that organi-
zations should continually evaluate their criteria for success and adapt their approaches to
leadership selection and succession accordingly. In concluding their assessment of tenure
in international sport, Geeraert et al. (2014) note that it would certainly be desirable for
more international sport organizations to implement term limits into their statutes.
Research on sport organizations has found little evidence of broad sector engagement
in succession planning for better governance. Indeed, in many high profile cases such as
FIFA there has been a clear resistance to change, although FIFA has recently introduced a
limit of three four-year terms. Given the current state of sport governance, and the global
attention gleaned from high profile failures of good governance, this state of affairs is
somewhat surprising.
In summary, while research to date on succession planning and management in sport
organizations and its relationship to effective governance is extremely limited there is
significant potential for scholars to further explore the dynamics at play.

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 436 19/02/2019 10:10

REFERENCES
Anderson, G.M. and D. Chun (2014), “How much board turnover is best?,” Harvard Business Review, April.
Australian Sports Commission (2012), Sports Governance Principles, available at http://www.ausport.gov.
au/__data/assets/file/0010/485857/ASC_Governance_Principles.pdf (accessed September 19, 2016).
Ballard, J., V. Davidson, P. Karlsson and G. Nielson (2016), 16th Annual CEO Succession Study: Australian
CEOs Outlast Global CEOs, PwC.
Booth, R., G. Gilligan, F. de Zwart and L. Gordon-Brown (2015), “Generic models of sports governance and
their potential for sustainability,” in Young Hoon Lee and Rodney Fort (eds.), The Sports Business in the
Pacific Rim, Baltimore, MD: Springer International Publishing, pp. 233–50.
Bradbury, T. and I. O’Boyle (eds.) (2013), Sport Governance: International Case Studies, Abingdon: Routledge.
Chappelet, J.-L. and M. Mrkonjic (2013), Basic Indicators for Better Governance in International Sport
(BIBGIS): An Assessment Tool for International Sport Governing Bodies, Lausanne: IDHEAP, Chaire Système
d’information.
Daily Mail (2017), “Patrick Hickey steps down from the International Olympic Committee to ‘protect’ the
organisation following ticket touting investigation,” available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/arti-
cle-4870130/Patrick-Hickey-resigns-IOC.html (accessed November 27, 2017).
Day, D., V. Gordon and C. Fink (2012), “The sporting life: Exploring organizations through the lens of sport,”
Academy of Management Annals, 6 (1), 397–433.
Doherty, A., K. Misener and G. Cuskelly (2014), “Toward a multidimensional framework of capacity in com-
munity sport clubs,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43 (2S), 124S–142S.
Geeraert, A. (2015), Sports Governance Observer 2015: The Legitimacy Crisis in International Sport Governance,
Copenhagen: Play the Game.
Geeraert, A., J. Alm and M. Groll (2014), “Good governance in international sport organizations: An
analysis of the 35 Olympic sport governing bodies,” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 6 (3),
281–306.
Gibson, O. (2016), “It is clear ex-IAAF chief Lamine Diack and sons grasped any opportunity,” available at https://
www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/14/iaaf-lamine-diack-sons-corruption-gabriel-dolle (accessed November
28, 2017).
Gitsham, M., J. Wackrill, G. Baxter and M. Pegg (2012), Leadership in a Rapidly Changing World, London:
Ashridge Business School and International Business Leaders Forum.
He, L., H. Wan and X. Zhou (2014), “How are political connections valued in China? Evidence from market
reaction to CEO succession,” International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 141–52.
Henry, I. and P. Lee (2004), “Governance and ethics in sport,” in J. Beech and S. Chadwick (eds.), The Business
of Sport Management, Harlow: Prentice Hall, pp. 25–42.
Hoque, Z. and L. Parker (2014), “Accountability, governance and performance management in nonprofit
organizations,” Performance Management in Nonprofit Organizations: Global Perspectives, 17, 3–16.
Hoye, R., G. Cuskelly, T. Taylor and S. Darcy (2008), “Volunteer motives and retention in community sport: A
study of Australian rugby clubs,” Australian Journal on Volunteering, 13 (2), 40–48.
IOC (International Olympic Committee) (2008), The Universal Basic Principles of Good Governance, Lausanne:
IOC.
Karg, A., H. McDonald and G. Schoenberg (2015), “The immediate impact of coach succession events on
season ticket holder attitudes,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, 24 (1), 30–42.
Kerwer, D. (2013), “International organizations as meta-organizations: The case of the European Union,”
Journal of International Organizations Studies, 4 (2), 40–53.
Lukomnik, J. (2017), “Board refreshment trends at S&P 1500 firms: Corporate governance and financial regula-
tion,” available at https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/ (accessed March 29, 2017).
Matheson, V., D. Schwab and P. Koval (2017), Corruption in the Bidding, Construction, and Organization of
Mega-Events: An Analysis of the Olympics and World Cup, Working Papers No. 1706, Worcester, MA: College
of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
Misener, K. and A. Doherty (2009), “A case study of organizational capacity in community sport,” Journal of
Sport Management, 23, 457–82.
Mowbray, D. (2012), “The contingent and standard governance framework for national governing bodies,” in
L. Robinson, P. Chelladurai, G. Bodet and P. Downward (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sport Management,
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 26–41.
NSW Communities Sport and Recreation (n.d.), “Succession planning for sports clubs,” available at file:///
Users/849054/Downloads/SuccessionPlanningforSportsClubs.pdf (accessed January 3, 2017).
PwC (2015), “Building the bench: Strategic planning for CEO and executive succession,” available at http://www.
pwc.com/us/en/people-management/assets/building-bench-strategic-planning-ceos-executive-succession.pdf
(accessed December 28, 2016).

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 437 19/02/2019 10:10

Rothwell, W.J. (2010), Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talent from
Within, New York: AMACOM.
Schulenkorf, N. (2017), “Managing sport-for-development: Reflections and outlook,” Sport Management
Review, 20 (3), 243–51.
Sotiriadou, P., L. Gowthorp and V. De Bosscher (2014), “Elite sport culture and policy interrelationships: The
case of sprint canoe in Australia,” Leisure Studies, 33 (6), 598–617.
Sport and Recreation Alliance (2014), The Voluntary Code of Good Governance for the Sport and Recreation
Sector, London: SARA.
Sport and Recreation New Zealand (2013 [2006]), “Nine steps to effective governance: Building high perform-
ing organizations,” in J.-L. Chappelet and M. Mrkonjic (2013), Basic Indicators for Better Governance in
International Sport (BIBGIS): An Assessment Tool for International Sport Governing Bodies, Lausanne:
IDHEAP, Chaire Système d’information, p. 46.
Tacon, R. and G. Walters (2016), “Modernisation and governance in UK national governing bodies of sport:
How modernisation influences the way board members perceive and enact their roles,” International Journal
of Sport Policy and Politics, 8 (3), 363–81.
Taylor, T. and P. McGraw (2004), “Succession management practices in Australian organizations,” International
Journal of Manpower, 25 (8), 741–58.
Taylor, M. and N. O’Sullivan (2009), “How should national governing bodies of sport be governed in the UK?
An exploratory study of board structure,” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 681–93.
Taylor, T. and P. McGraw (2006), “Exploring human resource management practices in nonprofit sport
organizations,” Sport Management Review, 9 (3), 229–51.
Taylor, T., A. Doherty and P. McGraw (2015), Managing People in Sport Organizations: A Strategic Human
Resource Management Perspective, 2nd edn., Abingdon: Routledge.
Transparency International (ed.) (2016), Global Corruption Report: Sport, Abingdon: Routledge.
UK Sport (2017), Code for Sports Governance, available at http://www.uksport.gov.uk/resources/governance-
code (accessed November 12, 2018).
United States Department of Justice (2015), “Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch delivers remarks at press
conference announcing charges against nine FIFA officials and five corporate executives,” Brooklyn, NY,
May 27, available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-loretta-e-lynch-delivers-remarks-
press-conference-announcing-charges (accessed March 17, 2017).
Yeh, C.M., T. Taylor and R. Hoye (2009), “Board roles in organizations with a dual board system: Empirical
evidence from Taiwanese nonprofit sport organizations,” Sport Management Review, 12 (2), 91–100.
Zare, K. and H. Janani (2015), “Correlation between quality of work life and change management of sports
clubs of city of Tabriz,” Research Journal of Sport Sciences, 3 (2), 45–50.

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 438 19/02/2019 10:10

Succession and Good Governance - Taylor e Robinson 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession and Good Governance - Taylor e Robinson 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

26.

Succession planning and management are a strategic process that an organization

426 and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 426 19/02/2019 10:10

WHY PLAN FOR SUCCESSION?

Succession discussions and decisions address strategic and operational challenges of an

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 427 19/02/2019 10:10

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 428 19/02/2019 10:10

SUCCESSION AND THE GOVERNANCE OF SPORT

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 429 19/02/2019 10:10

EXTENDED TENURE AND LOW TURNOVER

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 430 19/02/2019 10:10

Name and country Role

FIXED TERMS IN SPORT

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 431 19/02/2019 10:10

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 432 19/02/2019 10:10

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 433 19/02/2019 10:10

 It is very hard to challenge this concern from an organizational perspective.

Tracy Taylor and Leigh Robinson - 9781786434821

M4686-WINAND_97817864348114_t.indd 434 19/02/2019 10:10